Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Really? Was this on the interstate? Are you both Caucasian?
What do you think of TED/TEDx talks?
- Thread starter Kyriakos
- Start date
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
We were allegedly speeding, (no ticket) but being 2 mph below the limit that seemed unlikely. Can't remember if it was interstate or not but we were right where the east-west highway leads you to the north-south highway going to Kansas. And yeah we're both white.
Kozmos
Jew Detective
Well, that was certainly inspiring!
There have been a couple really good ones lately. Reminiscent of the old TED awesomeness.
Birds and the Bees. (Warning, about animal sex). I guarantee you won't regret this ten minutes. Hilarious. Informative. One of those "I lol'd, for real" talks.
This one is by the same guy that Kosmos just posted, but updated with four years of progress. Wow, inspiring. I giggled. I teared up. It's good, it's really good. I learned a lot about bionics.
"I decided that I wasn't handicapped, but that technology was handicapped"
"Oh my gawd!" exclaims the patient "I ... can't even explain!"
Plus, remember the Boston Marathon explosions? Yeah, screw you, evil.
Birds and the Bees. (Warning, about animal sex). I guarantee you won't regret this ten minutes. Hilarious. Informative. One of those "I lol'd, for real" talks.
This one is by the same guy that Kosmos just posted, but updated with four years of progress. Wow, inspiring. I giggled. I teared up. It's good, it's really good. I learned a lot about bionics.
"I decided that I wasn't handicapped, but that technology was handicapped"
"Oh my gawd!" exclaims the patient "I ... can't even explain!"
Plus, remember the Boston Marathon explosions? Yeah, screw you, evil.
IAM
Emperor
Overall I love the TED events. Most can be watched on Netflix. That's where I see them. On Netflix I watch them by category. A few of them are utter crap but overall worth it.
I watched and enjoyed this one. I have a good contact in (Canadian) finance who felt it was a reasonable autopsy.
How to rob a bank (from the inside, that is)
How to rob a bank (from the inside, that is)
Narz
keeping it real
Well put.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
Like others, I have my skepticism of the usefulness of TED talks. My skepticism is ironically enough, summed up by this TED talk:
Link to video.
That being said, there have been two Ted talks that I absolutely adore. The first being the dangers of prejudices and stereotyping, and the second being about the economics of charities. A must-watch on both if you have the time.
1) Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie : The danger of a single story
2) Dan Pallotta : The way we think about charity is dead wrong
Link to video.
That being said, there have been two Ted talks that I absolutely adore. The first being the dangers of prejudices and stereotyping, and the second being about the economics of charities. A must-watch on both if you have the time.
1) Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie : The danger of a single story
2) Dan Pallotta : The way we think about charity is dead wrong
It's actually a trip I'd like to make again, only not just to Chicago but a USA loop. I'd call it Roadtrip CFC and it's been a dream of mine for years, just going out and meeting all you suckasCombine that with a music tour and then blog the whole thing. But mostly just visit you guys.
Dude, that sounds amazing.
"I don't want our epitaph to read "here lies our generation, we kept charity overhead low"
lol!
Clever!
I really liked this talk. Looking back on my life, I think it changed my thinking.
Global priorities bigger than climate change
I recently watched this, it reminded me of Lomborg's talk.
How Many Lives Can You Save? -- Taking Charity Seriously
Now,there's a vast difference between 'working' on climate change as a form of charity and as a form of investment. A huge proportion of what *I* could be doing regarding climate change can end up providing me immediate benefit. Weather proofing, efficient car, etc. All of these deliver a bang for their buck to me. Then there's the second question of what I should be doing for charity. Should I install solar that will cost me $10 more per month? Maybe. If I consider that to be charity spending. Then there's a second question, can I do something better with that $10 per month?
I have to say, this Bjorn talk really upped the charity that I give. I was tokenly investing/spending on climate change before, but lots of that was spending in the win/win category, where it was wiser than holding bonds. But pure dollars out of my pocket? I've given much more, and (I think) much more effectively. The second talk really goes into the calculus of saving lives. It's just something good people should know.
Global priorities bigger than climate change
I recently watched this, it reminded me of Lomborg's talk.
How Many Lives Can You Save? -- Taking Charity Seriously
Now,there's a vast difference between 'working' on climate change as a form of charity and as a form of investment. A huge proportion of what *I* could be doing regarding climate change can end up providing me immediate benefit. Weather proofing, efficient car, etc. All of these deliver a bang for their buck to me. Then there's the second question of what I should be doing for charity. Should I install solar that will cost me $10 more per month? Maybe. If I consider that to be charity spending. Then there's a second question, can I do something better with that $10 per month?
I have to say, this Bjorn talk really upped the charity that I give. I was tokenly investing/spending on climate change before, but lots of that was spending in the win/win category, where it was wiser than holding bonds. But pure dollars out of my pocket? I've given much more, and (I think) much more effectively. The second talk really goes into the calculus of saving lives. It's just something good people should know.
Lomborg's premise here is that we have some fixed amount of development aid of ~$50 billion, and that we need to prioritize how to spend it. I agree with much of what he's saying: we do need to engage in triage and address first the problems where some money can go a long way, that climate change is fairly low on this list of priorities (although I'd stick it somewhere in the middle), and that development aid overall is terribly inadequate.
In particular, diseases common in the developing world and malnutrition could be addressed quite easily. There's been some work in that direction since his 2005 talk, but a lot more could be done on relatively little money which could save many lives. Tropical diseases were at the top of my own list. I'd also bump up sanitation and clean water supply - those do require significant infrastructure investments, but they pay off enormously in reduced disease burden.
As for climate change, it is true that it will take a large investment to make a difference. Despite substantial growth in renewables, it appears that fossil fuels will dominate the energy landscape for a long time to come. Efficiency improvements and increased renewable share can help a bit, but in global terms we're currently seeing the most rapid CO2 concentration growth rate in human history, and I think the climate burden of economic development of developing countries is likely to substantially outpace any reduction in resource use by the developed world for at least the next couple of decades, unless their growth rate falls substantially.
My biggest disagreement with him is the premise that the UN's projections of economic growth to 2100 will hold. He says that, by 2100, countries like Bangladesh will be roughly as rich as an average Western European country today, so it makes little sense to slightly postpone climate change to help out people who will be as rich as the Dutch are now. I see no reason to believe that the Earth can sustain ~9 billion people with Western levels of affluence, despite technological advances that will help people achieve more for less. As it is, we appear to be drawing down natural capital just to keep the world's current rich people satisfied, and that's almost the very definition of "unsustainable". I also suspect climate change will be much less benign than he seems to be assuming.
I kinda agree with him, to be honest. The odds of the Bangladeshis of 2100 being as rich as the Dutch are today are much higher if we spent on nutrition, disease, eduction, etc. Adapting to the climate costs are just much easier if you're rich. And those other interventions deliver giant bang for the buck.
I liked it. What I liked most about it was the obvious conclusion (to me). "Huh, if I really care, maybe I should just give money". Selecting the charities is a process of iteration, but ehn.
I liked it. What I liked most about it was the obvious conclusion (to me). "Huh, if I really care, maybe I should just give money". Selecting the charities is a process of iteration, but ehn.
For the record, since the thread was resurrected, i have to note that (sadly) i created it in the spirit of an interview i would go through at the time for a post in a tedx event locally. I chose to not go through with the interview, but was a bit paranoid that posting very negative stuff about those events might harm my chances while i still cared 
From the few ted/tedx videos i saw, it seems like a not very beneficial event for the most part.
From the few ted/tedx videos i saw, it seems like a not very beneficial event for the most part.
I certainly agree with all of that - although I'm not sure that the poorer developing countries will eventually reach the current Dutch per-capita GDP, I do think they'd have a much better chance if richer areas spend more on those areas than they currently do. Those are the areas with the greatest bang-for-the-buck in spending.
Yep. There are a lot of interesting ideas presented, and TED is worth checking out because of them (whether I agree with the idea or not). But a fair number are drivel, or present things that are completely implausible. There's also a definite techno-utopian bias, although I don't really mind since it least gets me thinking.Ceoladir said:
